Since only a small handful of people have actually read the 2074 page health care reform bill, allow me to paraphrase some of the points given in recent speeches and combine them with the facts of today.

1. Our health care is a broken system and it's bankrupting the American citizen.

Are you sure? I'll give that a maybe, but is it health care that is bankrupting America, or is it the effects of frivolous lawsuits on health care providers? Oh, so it's complicated. Well then if that's the case, let's not throw out broad statements just to make a great sound bite.

But let's assume it is bankrupting America. Does that mean the answer is a government takeover? We all know how good the government is at running things. They couldn't run a small business for 2 months without driving it so far into the ground it would come out on the other side.

2. If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.

So what I'm being sold is: health care is broken, but if we want to keep our broken health care plan, yes we can. That's about as desperate of a sales speech as I've ever heard. Basically it means they'll spend a ton of money trying to fix something, and if it doesn't work, the people can just stay the course, only with $940 billion less. Now that is an attractive offer... for a MORON.

3. Health care reform will save $1.2 trillion dollars in its second ten years.

Please, please, try not to laugh. In all seriousness, all who believe that raise your hand. What's that? Not raising your hand? I'm shocked. If the government has an example of anything they have done on at least half this scale that saved the money they said it initially would, a bogus pledge like that might actually carry water. But really, $1.2 Trillion dollars? I would love to meet one person who sincerely believes the government can do something this drastic that will save $1.2 trillion dollars. Now keep in mind, $1.2 trillion right now is about $2.4 trillion in 20 years at the current inflation rate. So if in 20 years it saved us $1.2 trillion that's 600 billion in today's terms. So how much is it going to save? I mean since we're lying about numbers anyway, how much is it? $600 billion? $2.4 Trillion? What's it going to be? The government doesn't know what something is going to cost NEXT YEAR, much less at the end of the "second ten years". Who speaks like that anyways? I'm offended that the government treats the people like a bunch of sheep, who can't possibly know what's best for them.

Realistically, this reform will not save the country money. What's that? How do I know? You need proof? Let's take a look at government experience:

The U.S. Post Office was formed 235 years ago. It's broke, subsidized, and can't compete with private UPS and FedEx.

Social Security was formed 75 years ago. It's broke & failing worse each year.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - 72 and 42 years old respectively. They are broke, failing, corrupt, and caused the housing crash and credit melt down of 2008.

Medicare and Medicaid formed 45 years ago and the government has been trying to sweep them under the rug ever since. They are bankrupt failures.

Amtrak was formed 40 years ago. Guess what? It runs at a loss and it was bailed out less than 2 years ago.

So wait, maybe the government has turned over a new leaf. I mean, that's all old stuff right? Maybe we should talk about the $787 billion dollar Stimulus Bill of 2009 which has and will continue to primarily benefit the recipients of non-bid government contracts. And how about Cash for Clunkers? You know, the catch phrase program that stimulated the economy of Japan? Those are all screaming successes right? The stimulus bill fixed unemployment right? What's that, it's worse now? Even worse than Obama said it would be if they didn't pass the stimulus bill? Oh, did anyone tell the government?

Anyone with an IQ over 7 should see a pattern here. Please forgive me if I hear the government say they will spend $940 Billion and save $1.2 trillion while making my health care better when their track record is a resume full of failure.

I am definitely guilty of this small business trap, that is the battle between profit and fun, which can lead to busyness. Often times, those that are responsible for a business's success and growth spend time doing what is fun and interesting instead of what needs to be done to protect the revenue stream.

Years ago I started up a coffee shop with some friends. If someone followed us around and graphed how we spent our time before we opened, I guarantee you the results would make me cry. We pooled the money together and got cracking. We settled the legal structure, secured a lease, bought equipment, installed the POS (point of sale) machines, bought insurance, wrote employee schedules, and on and on. But just looking back, we spent gobs of time thinking and dealing with pieces to the puzzle that were trivial. We spent a lot of time on decorating, planning the music play lists, booking events (bands), and what not. We spent a lot of time thinking about things that weren't involved with agenda of being profitable. In fact, I can't think of much we did that was on the profitable agenda. That was a mistake of magnificent proportions. We were more concerned with running a cool coffee shop than running a money making machine. We just bought stuff, set up stuff, planned stuff, prettied up stuff, and the like. We should have sat down with excel and planned out to the penny where money was going and where it was going to come from. That was a huge mistake.

When you choose the fun and interesting agenda over the revenue agenda, you become busy. And for the record, busy is not a good thing. In business, busy should be defined as spending too much time doing things that are not important, and not enough time doing what is important.

So why do we business owners drift towards fun and interesting and away from profit from time to time? For one, fun and interesting is easy, and protecting profits is hard. Turning a revenue stream into a moat takes a lot of work. Just visualize a moat. Remember that thing was not built over night. It probably was a stream a long time ago. But someone did a lot of work to stack tens of thousands of stones several meters high to line the walls around and in inside of it. That moat is a revenue stream all grown up. I believe the business owner's job is to turn revenue streams into moats.

So with every agenda, you have to ask yourself: is this truly valuable? Will the time invested have a positive return? A perfect example is one of my favorite charities in Houston put on an $11,000 fishing tournament, but only raised $7,000. They flushed $4,000 because they chose fun and interesting over revenue.

For you business owners out there, focus on revenue. Without revenue, you don't have a business, you have an expensive hobby.

Every so often, it seems I am running around in circles again trying to decide how important a logo is. What makes a good logo? How much do design and color choices matter?

Certainly, the logo does become the business's mark as they sign their products and marketing materials with it. But when you are coming up with a new logo, how important are those decisions to shave a corner there, deepen the blue there, or shrink the symbol there?

As an entrepreneur or business owner, logo decisions will be a true test of your decisiveness. Having worked with over a 100 start-ups, I have seen people waffle for days on end over some of the most non-impacting decisions ever known to man. That is the trap; to over think it, and tweak it to the ends of the earth. Often times, it is one of the few creative/subjective processes that one is involved in. Those people usually either could not care less, or worse, are on track to make up their mind right after the second coming of Christ.

Barring any terrible design decisions, here is where I rest on the issue. The value of a logo sits on a continuum between design and perception. On the left side, and early on, the value of the logo rests on the design, and how well it graphically represents the business. On the right side, after business successes/failures, and brand awareness settles, you have perception. The perception phase, which is far longer than the initial phase, depends on the quality of the business. The coca-cola logo would never be talked about if the whole world ignored the soda. The K-Mart logo would not carry its loser value if the business had not inherited its inferior reputation. If Nike shoes were uncomfortable and placed 9th or 10th in people's minds as the athletic shoe of choice, the swoosh would have a negative perceived value. On the contrary, the swoosh is as cool as it is and carries amazing brand recognition because of the success of the business and the quality of the shoes, not because it is a swoosh.

Do your best to not over think your logo decisions. Focus on the business. If your business succeeds, the logo is good.

There are probably two dozen life lessons to be learned from The King of Pop's passing. One lesson in particular is one I hope I never forget... but more on that later.

Fame is a drug, but much more like coffee and alcohol than crack. If you take crack, we know exactly what is going to happen to you. If you're on coffee or alcohol (or fame), the outcome is far more unpredictable. Results vary by individual. But either way, if you get too much of it (fame), bad things will happen. Even Bono sings that no one should be too good at celebrity. And if there ever was a lethal dose of fame, people like Elvis and Michael certainly had it.

But here is my real takeaway from the media circus that is Michael Jackson's death. If you are a parent, a wife, a husband, or you sincerely love anyone more than you love yourself; pay attention to the fifteen second speech that Michael's daughter Paris gave at his extremely public memorial service. There was genuine, deep, real, unscripted, sadness from here father's passing. Possibly unknowingly, she showed the whole world her deepest hurt. If you saw it, and were not even temporarily moved, then check your pulse, the girl lost her father. It is sorrow at its deepest.

It is no secret now that Michael was routinely taking drugs that doctors now say created the perfect storm for the event of his death. I can not imagine that anyone is shocked to learn there was at least some substance abuse in his fame filled life. But I feel confident if Michael could have seen the sadness of his children, family and loved ones, (but primarily his children) at his own memorial service, he would have quit those drugs cold turkey, and never looked back.

I can't think of anything that I wouldn't stop doing (or start doing) to ensure that I never have to see my daughter Ava go through that kind of pain.

Here's the part that I have trouble understanding. A lot of people get their underpants all up in a wad over pouring water down a known terrorist's nose? Interesting. Is that really torture? I think pledging a fraternity is closer to torture than that is. Besides, are they, the terrorists, not lucky in some ways that they were captured, and not killed in battle?

Torture is frying someone's hands over fire. Torture is dripping water on someone's forehead in the desert until they die. Torture is beating someone to death's bleeding edge. Torture is cutting off private parts, or fingers, or whatever. The history of torture is way, way, way way way more severe and permanent than pouring water down someone's nose.

So the question is: is water boarding torture? It causes no long term damage, and it doesn't kill, or leave scars. The victim completely and totally recovers from the experience. So in the words of Dennis Miller, perhaps its heaven sent.

I just find it interesting that right now, there are US troops abroad killing the enemy. Shooting them, blowing them up with bombs, destroying buildings, you know... all out no holds bar war.

But in Cuba, they just poor water down captured terrorist's noses. So are we saying that it's okay to wipe them clean off the face of the earth with superior fire power, but not okay to poor water down their nose? I'm confused.

And now Gitmo is supposed to close. And the million dollar question is: where do we put the captured terrorists? The obvious solution has been overlooked for too long. Many people suggest you can't just take them back to where they came from, they'll become terrorists again. Sure, history has certainly proved that true. I say send them back to the war, where they came from. But instead of dropping them off at the city center, where they can be welcomed home by their terrorist buddies, just drop them off in the middle of the battle field... say... a half a click (0.3 miles) from a marine base. I mean, if we have to close Gitmo and send them somewhere, back to war is the only logical answer. Unless they are insane (which unfortunately is highly probable), would they not beg to go back to Gitmo?

I just find it fascinating that generally speaking, it seems that so many people have a bigger problem with water boarding, than killing the enemy in battle.

Here are a couple links for those who want to confirm their suspicions regarding the age of the Chinese gymnasts in the Olympics.

http://www.socialmedia.biz/2008/08/google-cache-on.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/27/sports/OLY.php

Now if I could only find some credible sources to explain the idiocy of the judge’s inconsistent method of scoring and the new gymnastic scoring system.

Up until now, I've been fine with the Bob Costas commentary coming from the Olympics broadcasted by NBC. My favorable opinion of Costas was strongly reversed, almost instantaneously, at the close of his interview with President Bush.

I expected somewhat of a liberal based question drilling of the President to happen, given that Costas is with NBC and they almost exclusively drink the liberal Kool-Aid anytime it's served. But I personally think that Bobby showed very little respect for the President. Like him (Bush) or not, he deserves respect. Bob's questions were long, leading, carried a sour attitude, and were worded in a spoon fed liberal fashion; anything but balanced and unbiased.

But to cap it off, Bob's final remarks in the short interview directed to President Bush were, "You are dismissed." Did I really hear that? A reporter telling the President, "You are dismissed?"

I think, "Thank you for coming" (to the interview) might have been an appropriate final remark. Or how about, "It was an honor having you." Maybe, "Thank you for your time." But no, it was, "You are dismissed". It was extremely pompous.

I wish someone with cue cards, or working a camera could have quietly reminded Costas, "Hey... remember you are a news reporter, and you're talking to the President... just remember that in case you have the urge to feel more important then you actually are."

For those I rub shoulders with, it's no secret that I've snubbed my nose at faintest idea of an iPhone for over a year now. I've even blogged my snubbing remarks here and here.

So let's just say the tables have turned. I bought an iPhone 3G on opening weekend. News outlets will tell you that they sold a million units in the first 3 days, while it took them 74 days to reach the same milestone on iPhone v.1. So very literally, I'm one in a million now. But the question is, should you believe the hype?

Apple says it's twice as fast. Coming off of my well featured Treo (which had email, touch screen web browsing, etc), I would say the 3G unit is far more than twice as fast. As far as mobile data speeds are concerned, this thing is way faster. The phone imported all 7 email accounts from my Outlook (Win XP), and it checks all the accounts at lightning's pace.

The web browsing is just insane. Though the 3G unit's network is the fastest cellular network out there, it will pick up any available WiFi networks in reach. Being honest here, I only sense a mild speed difference between fully connected WiFi networks and the 3G network from ATT. The multi touch zoom in/out and drag while browsing is without doubt the most efficient mobile web browsing available.

Not even being an avid iTunes user, I easily synced the phone to my XP Pro running Dell, and threw a couple music and photo albums on the phone. Continuing to play around, I downloaded Bloomberg's free application for financial markets news and quotes. It also comes with a Google Maps app complete with pin point GPS location. So if you're lost in the car or otherwise, help is right in the palm of your hand. Bottom line, It was all a snap. A dumber than average monkey could work this thing like a pro.

Final remarks. I was once an iPhone doubting skeptic, but now I'm not only drinking the Koolade, I'm ready to serve it up to others. It is by far the best smart phone device out there.

Having just gotten back from a fun filled week at K-Kauai, there is much to reflect on. If you are not familiar with Kanakuk Kamps, just know that they are the best Christian camps on the face of the planet. Headquartered in Branson, Missouri, Kanakuk operates several camps throughout the Ozark Mountains, dozens of youth ministries across the U.S., and various other inner city camps and outreach camps located as far away as Africa.

Though Kanakuk started in 1926, it came into my world while I was in Junior High. Just this past week, we attended their family camp, K-Kauai. Calling it a family camp is accurate, but almost misleading. It's really an all inclusive family resort, that happens to have some similarities with camp. They take care of all the meals. Each family has their own air conditioned, 2-bathroom cabana. Kids of all ages, are not just taken care of when the grown ups are busy, but they are involved in age appropriate teaching and activities every day. All the Kanakuk staples are present: multi level ropes course, unbelievable pool grounds, on site water park, zip line over the edge of a cliff, most any sport you can think of and several others you can't, water skiing, bluff jumping, and many others. I hardly call it vacation, because there just isn't a lot of resting going on. After one week, I'm tired and sore.

The week is over, and one item of interest keeps standing out. Most of the 40 families there while we were had all been to Disney World before. And time and time again, I heard the same story from families who asked their kids earlier in the year if they would rather go to Disney World or Kanakuk? Each time the kids would give the parents the unanimous decision for Kanakuk.

I have to stop right there, because that seriously blows my mind. But on the drive home, it clicked:

Kids would rather have authentic, inspiring, and challenging activity based interaction with their family, well trained Kanakuk staff, and counselors, then have entertainment to the multi-million dollar N'th degree from Disney. Put simply, it's authentic interaction vs. world class entertainment.

All reflections aside, we had an awesome and unforgettable time and can't wait to go back. Enjoy the photo album on the left.

I have surprised even myself at how my opinions of the presidential race have shifted over time. As the dust from the primaries settle, I am starting to think that my opinion shifting is sure to slow down.

But what is Obamamania? This week, we have received 4 messages on our home phone from Obama telemarketing. Yesterday, we had a family stop by our house doing some door to door promotions for Obama. Certainly that is Obamamania. They were disappointed that both Katie and I had already voted earlier that day, and not for Obama. I did not have the time to ask "why" when they knocked, but I wanted to. Why is a simple question. Why Obama? I just want to know why those who support Obama so passionately do.

Here is my Obamamania.

I hear Obama make a speech, and I'm moved by it. I look at his voting record as a senator, and I'm disappointed (if not disgusted).

I watch Obama's performance at the debates, and I'm impressed. I take note of his various relationships and associations with questionable characters, and I'm disappointed.

So it turns out, when I see the guy on TV, when he opens his mouth, when he inspires the masses; I too get caught up in the Obamamania. But when the rubber meets the road, it turns out he has the most liberal voting record in the history of the senate. Well that doesn't really gel well, when my views typically aren't in line with the far left.

So I am constantly baffled about how on the surface I can be so attracted to a candidate with whom I couldn't disagree with more?

Serving the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted "Present" 129 times. Present means I'm here at the vote, and I choose not to vote Yes or No. That's essentially showing up to vote and passing, like it's a game of Go Fish. He defends that point in interviews by saying that voting Present is a tradition in Illinois. So indecisiveness is a tradition? For a leader? The President of the USA doesn't get to vote Present. It's yes or no, all day every day; much like any leader. Voting present is a habit that needs breaking.

On government spying, I say let them spy and Obama says no, not even on foreign suspects. That means our agencies must acquire a court order every time they want to tap the phone line of a foreign suspect. I call that thick red tape in the form of delaying productivity.

On partial birth abortion, he voted Present. On lowering the penalty from carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon from felony to misdemeanor, he voted Present. On firing a gun near school grounds, Obama voted Present. On sealing the trial records of Sex-Abuse victims to protect the victim's privacy, he voted present (making himself the only member not supporting the bill.) On protecting the life of a failed abortion, he voted Present. On prohibiting strip clubs from operating within 1000 feet of schools, churches and daycares; he voted Present.

Now keep in mind, voting present aligns with NO, because Present will not get a bill passed. Voting Yes gets bills passed, while No and Present will not. But we'll keep calling it Present, because that's what the vote says.

Even in his book, The Audacity of Hope, he writes, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up..." Well that is interesting.

So I guess I'm at a point where I just don't get it anymore. Why all the fanfare? Why all the fainting at rallies? Why all the support?

By no means am I saying Hillary and McCain are saints to be praised. I just don't get the run away blind love that Obama receives from so many. Obama coming to Dallas got the same response as U2 did, as if Obama has been building a fan base of millions for 30 plus years.

He says he wants to have an immediate withdraw from Iraq. But if he withdraws from Iraq and turmoil develops there again (in the Middle East) then he'll order troops to go back. I'm sure that would be cheap. Of course he will raise taxes, so maybe that will help with the Leave and Go Back plan.

I wonder what would happen if the US left Iraq. I wonder if things would go bad in the Middle East? I mean, I have no historical reference to draw from, so I just wonder. I mean, it's not like we have sworn enemies growing armies, and taking refuge in nearby territories or anything? I wonder if Oil prices would go so sky high that it would cause serious and long term damage to the US economy. Now, more so than ever, is not the time to mismanage the Middle East.

I am simply truly interested to hear why people support Obama. I don't want hear about Bush, he's not running. I would like to know Why Obama? That's my question.

The song that Will-I-Am put together for Obama is getting quite a bit of attention. Millions and millions of views on youtube are just the start. The media is all over it. I watched the video, and I was impressed. Very impressed. It is catchy, carries the strong "yes we can" hook, and it's loaded to the brim with A-list celebrities.

It is apparent: people are absolutely desperate for inspiration. Whomever shows the first inkling of inspiration; Hollywood and its naïve-idealist followers all come running. Passion. Charisma. People are yearning to hear something and be moved by it.

Here's the problem. It's a speech. It's a song. It's the image of the famous, who most people unfortunately confuse with the wise minds of our time. For the most part they Act. They pretend to be someone else, for a living. Does it take talent? Yes! Can it be unbelievably entertaining? Absolutely! Does it deserve the blind and inherent personal influence it gets? No.

Don't hear me wrong, it took strong talent to put that piece together. It IS a great piece. It also takes strong talent to put an amazing speech together.

I cannot discount the talent it took to create and deliver that message in song. What I can discount is its ease of impact on the masses. What does this mean? Good, original rhetoric is powerful. Combine that with song, and you have an emotional magnet.

If needed, I could write a song to convince people of a position (at least 51 percent of an audience). I cannot say my song will be near as good as Will-I-Am's, but I bet I could put together a pretty good piece.

What does this mean? Nothing. It's music and lyrics. Songs can be powerful. Words, emotion, music, delivery... it's just that. It is art. It's not a plan and follow-through.

This election is not about our Nation's issues anymore. It's not about finding the best man/woman for the job either. It is a popularity contest. A presidential hopeful doesn't really need to convince people that their plan is the best plan. They need to figure out how to get you to vote for them. There is a big difference.

Personal example. Ten years ago, I interviewed with a partner of a big firm. He was the decision maker of me getting a job or not (getting elected you might say). The interview with this company was my last straw. But instead of talking to him about why I am the man for the job, I researched his interests. I talked to people that knew him. For over an hour and twenty minutes of conversation, we talked about his interests and hobbies, and boy I was excited about them. I didn't have the credentials for the job, so I pursued the path of convincing him to LIKE me. I didn't have the experience. I didn't have a plan, the skills, or the knowledge. Granted I might figure out a plan, and acquire the skills and knowledge to get things done and make things work. But at the time of the interview I was a blank slate. So instead of talking about technologies (the issues), my previous work with them (experience), my plan on how I can make his team better, and my ability to invent solutions to solve problems; I worked every angle so he would LIKE me. I needed him to go back to his boardroom, with the rest of the million dollar salary partners, and say, "I like Matt, I think we should go with him". I needed his vote. This man knew absolutely nothing about my experience, my skills, or my potential to learn and become and asset on his team. He simply had an enjoyable hour and twenty minute interview. You could say I did a song and a dance. Was it right? You be the judge.

Back to the Yes-We-Can song and dance. Let it entertain you. Let pop culture and musicians entertain you. Let Hollywood entertain you. That is what they are there for. But do not let them influence you. Influence is Power. Do not hand that power over to the first person who entertains you. Look at the facts. Look at the plans. Look at their beliefs. Look at their position on the issues. Look at their experience. Weigh that on your own personal scale, however you see fit. Make your own decision. We should all be so careful that we don't let someone else do that for us.

For the last couple years, I have felt sorry for Aruba. Their tourism industry is in shambles. One horrific crime that happened to take place on their turf has crippled the island.

I've been to Aruba, and it's a beautiful place. Great beaches, great food, and very friendly people. The US dollar is accepted everywhere, and over all, it's an inexpensive travel destination. Given that it's only 3 hours south of Miami, the year round temperature is in the upper 70s, and the fact that it is a Caribbean island outside the tropical storm path make made it a great place to vacation.

Despite the fact that Aruba has the lowest overall crime rate in the region, Katie and I thought it was quite close to a lawless society. Traffic laws aren't enforced. You can go as fast as you want. No one stops at intersections. Right of way is lost to anyone who yields. You can drink and drive, while not wearing a seat belt. Some drugs that are illegal here in the states are legal there. For the most part, if you don't kill or steal, you won't get yourself in trouble.

The Holloway case started in May of 2005. Understating the obvious, it is a terrible story. For the past couple of years, I've found myself wanting justice for those involved, but sticking up for Aruba with comments like, "They aren't prepared or qualified to solve high profile/serious crimes, because they have no experience." The USA has tons of experience solving violent crimes. We have several branches of law enforcement, zillions of lawyers and private investigators. Our media is like an unstoppable rebel force. It was our media who practically moved to Aruba so the story wouldn't disappear. Aruba doesn't know how to deal with serious crime, because it so rarely happens. The island is roughly 7 miles by 19 miles. There's nowhere to hide.

I have a new opinion now, and I will say I have already visited Aruba for the last time. Here is my problem. Natalee Holloway's step father was interviewed just days after the disappearance. He was asked a series of questions about whether or not Natalee was epileptic, or had a history of seizures. That line of questioning seems strange all by itself. Now just this week, an undercover video is exposed to the world with confessions (albeit conflicting and confusing at best) from Joron. Regardless if his recorded statements are true or not, he spoke at length about Natalee shaking, and displaying seizure like symptoms, just before dying (he claims).

Why would the Aruba authorities have asked Natalee's family just days after her disappearance if she was an epileptic? Is that question normally asked in a murder or missing persons investigation? How would they know to ask that question more than 2 years before the release of the undercover confessional video? Now, I am not bringing any new information to the table. However, I do feel that question is the most important question on the table right now, and the answer to that question is in the critical path to solving this terrible crime.

Wow. Though I was tired of hearing about the Olympics, I am saddened that Romney is no longer in the race. His most powerful campaign speech (by a mile) was given moments ago while announcing his campaign's end. Had he come across that powerful over the last month, he would be winning the race, not leaving.

1. The democratic debate was interesting. Not as much mud slinging. Hillary is doing a good job of not being despicable. I think she is continually improving her likeability. But then again, when you're touted as the least likable person on the table, there's nowhere to go but up.

2. The audience roared uncontrollably on the thought of a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket. If the two dems want to trade their pride for the office, I think that transaction is readily available. I think it would be very hard for the Repubs to win under those circumstances.

3. The republican debate was disappointing for me. CNN invited all four candidates, and only let two of them talk. They almost focused their questions completely on Mc and Rom. What an insult to the others.

4. Why do moderators continue to chime in with , "so and so just took a stab at you". You know, in some cases they did (stab), and in some cases they didn't. Either way, the candidates are smart people, they don't need jokers trying to stir up drama out of thin air.

5. Romney is growing a likeability problem from where I sit. Almost as if he's caught the disease from HRC as she cures. More and more he's showing a defensive demeanor, and an almost abrasive attitude with come back comments. Aren't we talking about the President of the United States here? There are massive problems on the table. If I hear one more word about the Olympics, I just might break out into a conniption. Part of me feels like comparing Olympics to Presidency is like telling the world you are going to take your tee box lemonade stand all the way to Fortune 500.

Tonight I was reminded tonight of an almost forgettable phenomenon. I am not a big fan of fast food, but I happened to pick up Sonic tonight. With my combo deal, I received a couple packets of Ketchup. I looked at the little packets and almost laughed. Four packets, all just a hint larger than a crushed pine nut. And there it hit me. These things just keep getting smaller. Year after year, things like this keep getting smaller.

Last week, I caught up with a former colleague (and good friend) over a lunch at Pei Wei. One of the things we talked about was the benefits of going to college. Or ultimately, is college worth it? What do you learn? Now, fresh out of college (go Baylor Bears), I could not tell you what I learned. But 10 years later, I can go on all day. Business case studies, product break throughs, accounting methods, pricing theory, operations, process efficiency, negotiating, and yadda yadda yadda. Of course I did learn a lot about technology, but typically that knowledge expired almost as fast as each day. I do remember from one class the discussion of shrinking products. It's a reality. More times than not, the 80 cents you pay for a 350 milliliter can of soup will probably cost 90 cents next year. It will come in the same can, but will only have 330 milliliters of soup. And of course the metal that makes the can will be a little thinner. Pretty soon you'll be able to open it with your fingernail.

Somehow we Americans are so hell-bent on cost savings, and quarter over quarter profit growth, that implementing methods to meet those goals tend to border on deception.

Have you seen a fun size candy bar lately? It used to be a good two bites. Now it's a mere bite and a half, or just one bite if you're in a hurry. Or what about the fun pack of Doritos? There's like 8 chips in that bag now, and 4 of them are broken. But there's a whole lot of air. I know you've seen it. You open up the bag and it looks like there's just a few chips hanging out in the bottom of the bag.

Profits. Cost Cutting.

Those must be important words, because they clearly and overly dictate American business. Quantity is getting smaller while Quality is on the chopping block. My Ketchup packet was enough for 1 onion ring... and I'm light on the sauce.

But keeping the example of the Ketchup packet condiment, why not take the packaging from a 3 ink printing to 1 ink? Product display isn't that important, because the end consumer isn't buying it. It's a freebee. You know you want it or you don't before you even get your food. How about just red. One red box with Heinz written in the middle. If costs need to be cut, don't give me less product. That is such a cheap shot. Anyone can cut costs by shrinking product.

I believe that some of the most creative and brilliant business minds are here in the states. Those brilliant minds need to come up with cost savers other than shrinking product. I'm just expecting my can of coke to shrink from 355 ML to 350 ML.

On the flip side, God bless Harley Davidson. Killer quality. Limited production. Could they make more money? Absolutely. But they choose to keep the integrity of the brand, their quality, and iconic status of their product. There's probably a 100 things they could do tomorrow to fatten up the margins, all of which would deteriorate quality. Now that's an American icon.

In closing, how long can you shrink product and still have product? There is an end to that rope, wherever it is. You will eventually have to come up with a real idea, because shrinking won't save the profit every time.

I am paying attention to politics like never before. Compare my social classification from 8 years ago to now, and the differences are massive.

I'm married. I have a child. I own a business. I'm a partner in another. Taxes are a whipping: corporate, partnership, individual, federal, state, etc. Health care is unrighteously expensive (about $800/month).

Simple thoughts.

The Dems (HRC, BO, and JE) want to raise capital gains taxes. That's the dumbest thing I've heard of since the "New Coke" (circa 19-80-something). Move 20 percent to 28 percent? Yeah that will get people investing in the economy. Now that's change I can believe in. It would sure change, and I believe it. And it would be the worst thing for our times. Slowing economy, weakening dollar, China and India are bidding (and in some cases over bidding) for the same oil the US wants, possible recession. Wait… let's raise capital gains, that will fix things. Dumber ideas have never been discussed.

Employee based health care is the second dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Small Business is the creator of jobs and the entrepreneurial spirit of America. So why make it so hard for people to get HC insurance? What if you're a sole prop? What if you're in a company with less than 15 employees? I've been insured by Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Care, Humana, and probably more that I can't even remember. I can't stay with Aetna because I don't work for KPMG anymore. I can't keep my Blue Cross coverage, because I don't work for Scient any more. And on and on. Why is it a company's burden anyway? What's the message? I can go get a job with some big fat company, clock in, clock out, most likely not enjoy my day to day, but I can get fabulous insurance on that path. Wow. Our hospital bills out 1 pill of Aspirin for $6. Double wow. I wonder why my family coverage is nearly $10,000 per year? What's the going rate for a band aid?

IRS vs Consumption Tax.

The IRS is the 3rd dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Anyone talking of ridding of the IRS and moving towards consumption based taxes… I'm listening (and probably voting). Mega rich actually historically pay a low percentage of taxes. Complicated corporate structures, teams of CPAs, filling every loop whole with credits and write offs like it's a game (because it is). Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, and they get free health care. That's quite an incentive. No wonder they're coming in droves. Crime lords, illegal businesses, hookers, drug dealers... what is their tax bracket? Oh wait, there's not one. Only the legitimate are taxed, because that's how the system is set up. And most any study would support me saying there are tens of millions of illegitimates in the country. The poor don't pay taxes, so the get in line so they can be paid by the government. If you barely qualify for welfare, what motivates you to make another $1000 a year? You could lose welfare and start paying taxes? Boy that sounds desirable. What part of any of this sounds like a good plan?

Tax my car. Tax my cheese, paper towels and property. Leave income alone. Taxing income is counter productive at best.

So to make a long story short (too late), I'm all over this election season. Can't America be presented with change they can (actually) believe in? I just ask for one other qualifier. It has to be good change.

Let me first state for the record that I tend to vote republican. But for the first time ever, I am routing for Hillary. The fire between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues to rage, but I do hope that Hillary pulls ahead. Iowa, New Hampshire, whatever the case… democrats should to come together and pull for their leading lady.

Please, hear me out.

Republicans need Hillary Clinton on the campaign ballot. She is just the kind of change the 2008 election needs.

By my research, it appears that somewhere around 122 million people voted in the presidential election of 2004. The results show that Bush edged out Kerry by just 2.62 percent (or roughly 1.5 million votes). Now from 122 million people, a disparity of only 1.5 million people is really pretty small.

If we have Hillary running for president in 2008, I think we can crank that disparity up to about 10 million, and really produce a run-away election, grand-slam style.

Here's the deal. There are a lot of people who like Hillary. But the thing is, "like" doesn't drive people to the voting booths. I suppose "love" might get people to the vote for a cause. But how many people "love" Hillary, or any candidate for that matter?

The truth is, we're talking about the United States here. And there's just not a lot of love out there. But there is a lot of "love to hate" running around. Just take a look around. Our magazine racks? Our news? Lifting people up (love) just simply just isn't cool and trendy right now. However, tearing people down is. With that said, our people are probably more likely to vote against someone, than for someone.

This is why Republicans so critically need Hillary Clinton in the race. So long as she is running, Republicans will turn out in mad droves, just to vote against her. And this my friends, is what will produce a run-away election, and will put the Republicans in the White House, again.

You see, in my opinion, there is only one way for Samsung to market the new Giorgio Armani phone. It’s almost as if the new phone needs a mascot spokesperson. An image if you will. Something (or someone) that can pair with the sleek, ultra-modern phone to instill the new persona that the buyer will assume after purchasing. But what one person could deliver such a message?

I know what you're thinking. Did I fall of the funny farm bus, the turnip truck, or the runaway crazy train? Is there a gas leak in my office? What am I doing writing about safer school zones? All good questions, some of which I will answer honestly.

Where I live, there is roughly one school zone for every half mile of roadway. In these areas, the speed limit is 20 MPH during the before and after school time windows. As a result, I simply don't go anywhere between the hours of 2:00 PM and 3:45 PM, because you just can't get anywhere going that speed. However, there are random occasions in which I find myself in these dreaded slow speed zones, and as such, I have observed the following.

The 20 MPH rule. It's a good one. It's been tried and tested by time, and for the most part I think it is a very important school zone law. But as mention before, extreme times call for extreme measures. And yes, we're in extreme times. On September 8th, 1952, when the first 20 MPH school zone law was recorded (FYI, I made that date up), the mobile phone wasn't even a dream yet; nor was the 10 disc CD changer, touch screen navigation panels, or the array of car-adapting iPod docks. So besides an ever explosive electronics industry, what's all this mean? I'll tell you what it means.

Distractions.

Multiple distractions that is. Focusing on driving seems to be more of a tertiary priority when behind the wheel these days. Which means, the 20 MPH school zone laws are simply dated, and it's time to adapt. In short, we need an additional law on top of the 20 MPH rule.

Let's just call it the "School Zone Cell Phone" law, which by the way is a much better name then the would be law-makers will come up with (IE, section iii of paragraph 2 in the state automobile educatory motorist communications act). They always come up with some mouth-full of nonsense, and then act like we're supposed to know what they're referring to. But I digress.

The Law: no talking on cell phones while passing through a school zone! Simple enough, right? Hang up the phone and pay attention to the children you should be trying not to hit. I mean come on, it takes eyes on all sides of your head if you are going to dodge the weeble-wobbling bicycle with the kid carrying a tuba on his back. Talking on a cell phone basically turns you into a below average monkey behind the wheel. Now all it takes is a low hanging banana or a nice set of climbable branches, and BAM! You're in a wreck. You get my point.

Call your statesman, write your congressman, and let's git-r-done. What do you say? No more cell phones in school zones.

Just the other day, I sat down with one of my long time friends and fellow entrepreneur over some manly grub. After comparing recent mental notes on life, family, business, and the like... we arrived at the following conclusion. Enjoy.

When I was 20, I knew everything.

In my mid 20s, I realized I don't know everything, but I can figure anything out.

After 30, I realized that I really don't know very much, and I have no idea how I'm going to figure it out.